An Integral Approach to Sustainable Decision-Making within Maritime Spatial Planning—A DSC for the Planning of Anchorages on the Island of Šolta, Croatia
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This is a very interesting research paper that tries to solve a crucial multifaceted problem using well-known and solid technics. However, in my view it has to be significantly rewritten to obtain serious academic impact.
The introduction section has to be limited. The aim and objectives has to be rewritten in a more clear and well-structured way. The literature review part is sufficient. Section 2 has to describe the materials and methods this paper uses and should not be limited to the tools used. The case choice of the study area should be justified while a major part of the section 2.2 should be presented in the introduction part as it created a fine idea about the aims and scope of the paper.
Authors should try to upscale the maps presented using GIS software while in the Results section a map should be produced and analyse to present the spatial distribution of the examined alternatives. More analysis is required regarding the presented tables and results.
In my opinion this paper is based on exploring alternative choices thus his title should refer directly to the study area (country specific).
Author Response
Dear Reviewer, here is respond to your comments.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
This research used the multi-criteria analysis to develop an integral approach which can provide support to the spatial planning specialists in anchorage capacities development for small vessels. This integral approach considers economic, environmental, ecological, social, and civil engineering aspect related to the use of coastal water. More specifically, this integral approach can support the sustainable decision making within the maritime spatial planning processes, including identification, validation, comparison and selection of locations for anchorages construction. The reviewer believes that the current version of the manuscript is not yet ready for publication; the authors are encouraged to consider the following comments and suggestion and revise the manuscript accordingly.
1. The authors should consider beefing up the Introduction section to include more background for the research. Also, the authors should consider splitting the Introduction section into two sections, including an Introduction section and a Background section. The Introduction section should focus on introducing the research objectives and the research questions that need to be addressed, while the Background section should focus on literature review of related work and defining the research gap.
2. The reviewer suggests the authors find an English editor to review and edit the manuscript. The reviewer has a difficult time in understanding the manuscript.
3. Where are the research data from? Who collected them? How did the model operate? In a geographic information system (GIS)? More detailed information needs to be provided.
4. In Table 1, there are 48 identified alternative locations for anchorage construction. Among these 48 locations, 16 are preliminary locations, and then for each of the 16 preliminary locations two variant locations were developed by varying their size. The reviewer is not sure if this is the appropriate way for developing more locations. Most times the options of identifying a location for anchorage construction are limited by the design requirements. How to make sure the different alternatives have the same basis to compare?
5. What is the rationale behind the selection of the various criteria? Why were these criteria selected? Are there any literature supporting this selection? How did the authors know these criteria were sufficient?
6. Some of the figures need to be revised to make them more legible. For example, Figure 2 is very blurry to look at. Same thing for Figure 3 and 5, which are really blurry to look at.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer, here is respond to your comments.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
This manuscript deals with integral approach to the sustainable decision making within maritime spatial planning. This manuscript needs some improvements before acceptance:
Introduction:
· Comparative analysis of existing decision-making techniques missing.
Materials and Methods:
· Techniques for specific model selection not explained and reason of preference.
· Figure.1 is not a comprehensive methodology but it’s a type of an overview.
· Methodology not presented in the form to be implemented by policy makers.
· Data Description-Raw data has not been presented.
Discussion:
· Theoretical--Discussion and Conclusions are generic and connection with results and analysis is missing.
· Comparison between existing technique and applied technique can improve the significance of the research.
Minor:
-Line 10-14,28-29 should be revised.... Grammar/English revision required.
- Formatting of Tables not according to journal format.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer, here is respond to your comments.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear authors,
I can see that serious rewrite work was performed and in my opinion your paper is upscaled significantly.
The Introduction section is now sound and clear. The same conclusion is valid for the Material & Method section.
The results section is still confusing especially because of the complicated tables (Table 5, Table 6) and I am not convinced that the results are discussed in full detail.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Here is answer to your comment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors have addressed my comments.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Here is answer to your comment.
